Sometimes quacks do get it right, but hoping that they'll accidentally get it right is not a good idea. In this case it's a matter of how much evidence do you need to take the risk and at what point is anything better than doing nothing.

Likewise, trusting someone who claims that injecting stem cells into you can help anything in any way is quite dangerous. At the current time, we know very little about how the damn things actually work. Thanks, largely, to people like Rick Perry. But what did those guys expect, that science would magically continue to progress after

Well, he isn't being too much of a hypocrite. Rick Perry earlier said he was against embryonic stem cell research http://www.chron.com/news/article/Perry-speaks-out-against-abortion-stem-cell-1498123.php [chron.com] So instead he's using his own stem cells in a poorly studied and as yet not very well understood process. He could have been a real hypocrite and done something with embryonic stem cells. But nope, he's pushed for the screwing over of science and medicine and he's going to stick with it. Of course, there's the secondary problem that even reliable, well-studied adult stem cell research is based to a large extent on information we got from studying embryonic stem cells. So even if this does work he will be benefiting from the research he despises. So I guess there is a small bit of hypocrisy but it isn't nearly as bad as it could have been.

We used all the data from the old embryo destroying techniques to figure out how to use them. In essence, you are benefiting from the destruction of embryos.

And even the Bush ban on embryonic stem cells allowed research to continue with the existing strains. Just not creating new ones from new fetuses. Nobody was trying to suppress knowledge or cover over damage that had already been done. It was just an effort to avoid continuing to pay (out of public funds) for something a large percentage of the p

Yes, Rick Perry is against embryonic stem cell research. Yes, this treatment did NOT use embryonic stem cells.

Please do not say that Republicans or conservatives are against stem cell research. Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research. Embryonic stem cell research is still government funded provided that it uses old stem cell lines or adult derived stem cells.

Adult stem cell research benefited from previously performed embryonic stem cell research. It did not arise on its own. Frankly, I'd ok the destruction of any number of embryos if it meant large medical gains for existing human beings.

Most embryonic stem cell research is done on mouse embryos, not human ones. Human embryonic stem cells are finicky about their environment and are generally a royal PITA to work with. There is very little benefit to working with human cells when you're researching basic mechanisms of pluripotency, since they are the same in the mouse cells. Frankly, the main reasons for pushing the switch to human cells are political, and even if you don't need them or want them, the boss may push it on you anyway because t

You still need to ask whether or not any of this could have happened at all without research he doesn't approve of over religious grounds that aren't even that well founded in doctrine to begin with. (thus the problem of embedding religious doctrine in public policy)

There are two things I would like to point out. The first is that whenever I point out that all current approved treatments using stem cells use adult stem cells and none use embryonic stem cells someone points out that adult stem cells have been studied significantly longer than embryonic stem cells.
The second point is that the treatment that he received is an experimental treatment, not quackery. It may become quackery in a few years if the doctors continue administering after the studies are run, if the

For anyone thinking of voting for Mister Perry let me inform you as someone who has met the man and lived in the state he's governed for most my life he is not someone you want in your white house. He's managed to distance himself over the last few years from Bush Jr but that's only political maneuvering they are still part of the same good old boys club and move in the same circles. He's even using the same tactic as bush and trying to get in good with the religious circles to try and get votes. The one t

Like Bush Jr, he is looking to bail after driving his charge into the ground. Now that the federal dollars that propped up the Texas budget have dried up, things are really coming apart. To "balance" the current budget the rainy day fund was used, public workers fired and education gutted. As a result, unemployment is now on the rise (now 8.4% vs national 9.1%).

He's even using the same tactic as bush and trying to get in good with the religious circles to try and get votes.

He is worse than Bush Jr on this, with his connections to dominionists. Shrub focused on appearing religious to get elected, Perry's efforts seems

If God is the creator of life, and the one who decides when your time is up, then isn't tricking your cells into becoming stem cells again defying God's will (or playing God)?

No, I don't have an answer to that, it's just a question. Just wondering where people draw the line between medicine and "playing God", since "God's will/province" is a central concept in the fight against embryonic stem cell research and abortion.

I think this is one of those logic questions that basically doesn't make sense. There are those who have come to this conclusion, so don't practice any medicine whatsoever.

Here's one way to answer it. You're drowning in the ocean. A boat comes by and tries to pick you up; you refuse, saying you're trusting God and that when He wants you to die, you'll die. A second boat; same thing. A third; same thing. You drown. You ask God, "Why didn't you save me?" He asks you, "Why did you pass up the three boa

Sigh. Looks like my comment didn't make it in time to educate this ignorant AC. Here it is again:Yes, Rick Perry is against embryonic stem cell research. Yes, this treatment did NOT use embryonic stem cells.

Please do not say that Republicans or conservatives are against stem cell research. Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research. Embryonic stem cell research is still government funded provided that it uses old stem cell lines or adult derived stem cells.

That's true. I made a similar post further down the page. However, republican opposition to embryonic stem cells is still absurd. It comes to the assumption or belief or whatever you want to call it that something without a brain is somehow human. It's just another tally in the table of republicans don't understand or believe science and the act on that

The argument here can't be boiled down to "This is or is not a person." The real argument is whether it is in your personal values to consider a fetus at whichever point to be close enough to be considered worth saving. The arguments over whether it is a woman's right to choose, whether the process is humane, etc. are all secondary to that main point. And the answer here is that every person's response is somewhat unique. The difficulty arises when this spectrum of personal values is polarized to a single y

Whatever you believe about a Fetus and it's value the reality is that Abortion is a medical procedure that is between the doctor and their patient. One of the greatest avenues to government intrusion into peoples personal lives is the propensity of both parties to regulate the medical establishment.

All the nut jobs that want to put restrictions on abortions absolutely fail to consider the situation when that abortion is not only warranted, but needed to save a life. The most volatile of those is the third t

Indeed. According to the Retardicans, my aunt would have had to die right now (her first pregancy was aborted because my unborn cousin was severely deformed, missing half his brain and most of his skull, and likely to die and go septic in utero which would have resulted in her death along with him).

Without a "one or both" exception - e.g. to save the life of the mother - in place, the Retardicans will never get me to so much as admit they have some good-faith reason to get between a woman and her doctor reg

If the law doesn't explicitly allow for cases where the mother's life is in danger, any abortion would still result in an arrest and a trial, whereupon a jury would decide whether or not they believe the doctor is telling the truth that the procedure was still medically necessary. Self-defense or not, that's still months of your life thrown into turmoil, massive legal bills, and an enormous emotional burden on someone who is already in a pretty precarious place.

It would be rather pointless - the big benefit of embryonic cells was supposed to be that they could be made via nuclear transfer, and so would be a perfect match to the patient. The idea was rendered obsolete once someone figured out you could induce pluripotence in adult cells, which is easier than screwing around with cloning.

My personal problem with embryonic stem cells is we can not have any kind of profit in using the UnBorn. (not create a market for UnBorn corpses)Now my views on Abortion come from being a Caucasian Male with a Conservative background and are as follows

1 It is the responsibility of the Father to A support his children B keep his [redacted} fly shut PERIOD2 Abortion should be the result of a doctor having to choose between the mother and the child (as in both will die RIGHT NOW) not any kind of "convenience"3

Your personal problem is fictional. These embryos come from in-vitro fertilization, they will be discarded if not used. Do you also appose fertility treatments?

Also #4 proves you to be a terrible person. Our justice system like all humans things is not 100% flawless. This means you are advocating not only crime in prison and murder, but the eventual murder of an innocent person.

Actually, I'm surprisingly close to your mind here I would however tweak things just a wee bit... try to follow:-)

Since 80% to 90% of the zygotes created for invitro fertilization are simply disposed of, there is a wonderful source for embryonic stem cells that will never, ever become a human being under any circumstance. No moral dilemma here. Moreover, if you want to take the fear of profit out of the equation, make it voluntary (like an organ donor card) for the parents of the zygote to donate the cells

Agreed, make a baby, support the critter, its not just a good idea, its the law... enforce the heck out of it. Moreover, make such a public stink about being a Dad who won't do his duty that the shear weight of being a pariah makes him do the right thing.

1 It is the responsibility of the Father to A support his children B keep his [redacted} fly shut PERIOD

I think it has been repeatedly proven that a lot of potential father and mothers cannot be expected to act responsibly when it comes to procreation. To not acknowledge this fact would irresponsible in itself.

My problem with the "Conservative Mindset" is that they tend to be against all forms of birth control and instead preach abstinence as a way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. To actually believe that teenagers have full control while experiencing the peak of hormones that they have only a few years ex

1 It is the responsibility of the Father to A support his children B keep his [redacted} fly shut PERIOD

And why is it not also the responsibility of the Mother to do the same?

Regardless, what you are saying is that no one should ever have sex unless prepared to have children. That is a bit extreme, especially when you later encourage adoption centers. I'm really not sure how it's more responsible to give a child up for adoption.

2 Abortion should be the result of a doctor having to choose between the mother and the child (as in both will die RIGHT NOW) not any kind of "convenience"

Your use of the word "child" already gives your opinion away. At what point does it stop being a zygote or an embryo and start being a person?

Generalism is a common human sin. But there is a large group of extremist conservative republicans that have zero science education that think all stem cell research is evil.

Note I say this as a Catholic that believes in Evolution and also feels annoyed every time atheists label every religious person in the planet as cavemen worshiping the flame. I know how it is to be in the wrong end of these generalizations.

But there is a large group of extremist conservative republicans that have zero science education that think all stem cell research is evil.

Really, have you ever met any? I do not know of any.
It would not surprise me to learn that, because of the way the press reports on all stem cell research, there are a few who are unaware that there are any stem cells that are not derived from embryos (or, if they are aware are under the impression that our knowledge of them derives from embryonic stem cell research*). However, I doubt there are any that would be opposed to adult stem cell research once it was clearly explained to them.

I actually do. Quite a few. And you would be shocked but the one I know the best is a preacher, who is also a computer programmer and huge scifi geek (but he has a grudge against anything magic related, like Lord of The Rings) that feels that way. It is indeed ignorance, but its an ignorance due to a religious barricade. Not only will he refuse to talk to you off the topic or allow you to tell him about the many forms of stem cell research, but he will go and preach about it at his church every time the top

I don't think thats unusual. How many pro-wrestlers do you know? Or hollywood superstars? Or Patent lawyers? It all depends on what circles you walk, and sometimes is just pure random luck (or lack of it.) If it was not for this specific guy and connections associated with him, I would not know any one that opposed all forms of stem cell research either (outside of TV.)

The incentive to create embryos for research also goes up in the furnace. You might not feel squeamish about me paying women to have abortions at my clinic and then reselling those embryos to research centers, but apparently there's a lot of people who do.

It's not clear to me why people don't have a more nuanced view of religious objections to certain kinds of medical research. For example, most of the objection to stem cell research seems to be the concern that we were creating and then destroying life that could otherwise become living humans. In other words, the objection is more to embryonic stem cell research rather than general stem cell research.

There has always been a large amount of distortion around the stem-cell debate... probably inevitable, once it became a political issue. Another oft-promulgated falsehood was the idea that stem-cell research was banned. It never was, not even fetal stem-cell research. The issue was purely about government funding.

Conservatives can't read, or don't pay attention. The embryos used for this type of thing are the waste product of in-vitro fertilization. Are these folks also against these kinds of fertility treatments?

Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

Worth pointing out that since these are leftovers from IVF, the alternative is simply the incinerator. Scientific research or trash. That's the choice here, life is not a possibility for these embryos. Embryonic stem cells do not come from abortions, nor can they ever: by the time one would realize they had an unwanted pregnancy, the embryo's cells have begun to differentiate and are not useful pluripotent cells anymore.

People do need to be reminded that stem cells =/= embryonic stem cells, but they

Not to mention that the Tea Party is made up of FISCAL conservatives, including Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Yes, the Tea Party has some social conservatives, but that's not what the party is all about.

Please do not say that Republicans or conservatives are against stem cell research. Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

Lets accept for the sake of argument that destruction of an embryo is indeed capital-E Evil. In fact lets explicitly equate it to the Evil of slavery. They are still idiots and their crusade is still idiotic.

Fighting to end slavery makes sense. Tacitly accepting slavery itself while battling specifically to prohibit slaves from going to medical school is totally idiotic. Targeting the "best" of a bad situation while ignoring the "evil" itself is dumb.

It will be somewhat interesting to see if anything happens to him. Horrible spine-babies are unlikely; but the thin dividing line between stem cells and good old fashioned cancer(or sometimes 'benign' non-metastasizing tumors in and around the insertion site) is some sort of touchy cellular signallying that is, as yet, not as well understood as it might be...

I know that my 'bad back' would have to be pretty bloody bad to risk growing a nest of tumors around my spine.

Yes, if you're going to be The Decider, your decisions will be under a lot of scrutiny. If you've fallen prey to false claims in the medical field, you're likely to be manipulated by political quacks too.

I had no idea that stem cell treatments are false claims in the medical field.

I know there ARE those who claim false things about them, but wasn't "stem cell research" a huge issue in the last few years... with most people, especially the medical field, fighting for more? especially embryonic?

Here's the actual procedure:

The Republican contender, who has access to the best medicine, chose to get stem cells removed from his fat from his back and then reinserted in attempts to fix a bad back.

And the criticism:

"As a highly influential person of power, Perry's actions have the unfortunate potential to push desperate patients into the clinics of quacks" who are selling unproven treatments "for everything from Alzheimer's to autism," Dr. George Q. Daley, of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute told the Associated Press.

There's no statement that it's a quack. It has not been "thoroughly vetted by researchers or approved by the FDA." ("thoroughly" seems like a key word there).

Context matters a lot. Is the experimental treatment part of the process to get the treatment FDA approved? Or is it a couple of guys a strip mall with a syringe and a centrifuge?

I guarantee you it's a lot more like the latter than the former. The FDA would like to shut these guys down, but your own cells aren't legally considered a drug. The FDA is going to court to try to change that.

I have no idea exactly how it was "experimental." It wasn't done by a random dude in a mall:

Perry underwent a spinal fusion procedure from Stanley C. Jones, MD, a Houston orthopaedic surgeon. But it wasn’t as routine as it sounds. During the operation, Jones gave Perry an infusion of adult stem cells in an effort to speed recovery.

He is some random dude. Just because he has an MD doesn't make him a researcher. MDs "prescribe" treatments like homeopathy all the time. Not effective, not FDA approved, but the government can't do anything about it. That's exactly what's happening here.

TFA did not say Rick Perry went to a quack. TFA said that there is a fear that people will think stem cells are magic cures and will seek out quacks who claim to heal them, all because they "heard Rick Perry did it."

I RTFA, the average Tea Party Mind [rollingstone.com] will hear "Stem Cells", and make a life decision there; regardless of fact. If Parry should debate the President, Obama's accusation of Parry not spending funds [newsvine.com] set aside to help the poor just so Parry could bank roll personal projects in a failing Texas sized state economy will be stinging. Like wise, people want to go to work, and will vote for the candidate that get them work.

I am reminded of an old joke, "Most Tea Party Types will not change their mind on Thursday